How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

If you have a question for members of the Zombie Squad bring it over here.

If this is a question specifically for an official authorized representative of Zombie Squad, Inc. your best bet will be to e-mail service@zombiehunters.org

Moderator: ZS Global Moderators

User avatar
Mikeyboy
* * * * *
Posts: 2265
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 8:00 am

How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Mikeyboy » Thu May 07, 2015 11:56 am

Maybe the mods can help me us out with this. ZS is a survival and prepping forum where (besides zombies) we discuss "SHTF" events in the world that could threaten our safety and how to prepare for it.

I hate to harp on this, but here is Rule #7
7.) No debating of politics or religion.
To help discourage any of the above rules from being broken, we make a point to avoid these types of debates. It makes it a lot easier for us to all get along and helps us stay focused on our root topics--survival and zombies. There are lots of other great forums out there dedicated to debating politics and religion if you wish to do so.
It seems this rule has change over the last few days from "No Debating of Religion and Politics" to "No Discussion of any Religion or Politics"

However over the past 14 or so years we have had "significant" terrorist attacks from a bad radicalized subset of a certain religion...which not to offend anyone I will refer to as Religion A. These attacks are based on the differences and slights against these bad, radicalized subset of "Religion A" and are focused against Religion B, C, and D, other subsets of A, as well as those who simply don't believe in any Religion.

Are we officially going to get ZS warning for mentioning the words "Muslim" " Sunni" or "Catholic" in the context of any terrorist attacks or anything in current events?

Here is what gets me...here is Rule #6
6.) No hate.
ZS does not support or tolerate any form of xenophobic philosophy, including but not limited to racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, or one based on someone's culture/personal beliefs.
ZS had multiple threads on the Baltimore Riots, and other riots that follow a similar logic. " Bad Subset of Group A are rioting/looting due to differences and slights committed by group B and all Police officers, but mostly those who belong to Group B". Yet somehow we had perfectly fine conversations that gave real good info about what was happening, where the riots were, potential dangers brewing, good and bad areas in Baltimore and the other effected cities. Unless it was wipe clean by the mods, there wasn't any outright racism in any of the Ferguson or Baltimore threads.

Even deeper am I breaking rule #6 or #7 by pointing out the reasons why the H5N1 bird flu is exploding right now in places like Egypt and China?

I guess my big question is how can we discuss the "bad players" that perpetrate real life "SHTF" events, and the potential victims without identifying who the those bad people are and what they believe, and to warn those who are potential victims without identifying the victims or their beliefs?

It kind of gets into the PC death trap....

"I hear a stranger is coming to kill you"

"what....what do they look like???"

"Well I don't want to offend anyone by telling you their religion, their race, gender, sexual orientation, their weight, hair color, eye color, what they are wearing....Its a person...wait is that offensive?? its definitely a living being of some sort...oh wait, never mind, you are already dead."

User avatar
Dabster
* * *
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:20 am

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Dabster » Thu May 07, 2015 12:05 pm

Fascinating question but I expect to see...
Image
The Shusher applied.
Shiney side out... Shiney side out...

User avatar
crypto
ZS Donor
ZS Donor
Posts: 16636
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: City of Saint Louis

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by crypto » Thu May 07, 2015 12:10 pm

Suggestion one: Call terrorists "Terrorists" and leave it at that. You want to talk about how to respond to an incident? awesome. Walk to talk about how to keep the world free from terrorists? This is probably not the place to do that.


Suggestion two: Have you considered making a new website called Terror Squad? You can have blackjack and hookers there and talk about whatever you want. Or alternately, literally anywhere on the internet except here.
MF'N TEAM LEADER

"Some people think that the best way to stop the leopard is to cut the horns off the gazelle. This, my friends, is insane."

Image
Image

User avatar
whisk.e.rebellion
ZS Board Member
ZS Board Member
Posts: 8187
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:34 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: 28 Days Later. Dawn of the Dead (both versions). Return of the Living Dead. Shaun of the Dead. Dead Alive.
Location: Monterey Bay, California

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by whisk.e.rebellion » Thu May 07, 2015 12:30 pm

crypto wrote:Suggestion one: Call terrorists "Terrorists" and leave it at that. You want to talk about how to respond to an incident? awesome. Walk to talk about how to keep the world free from terrorists? This is probably not the place to do that.
This.

We're not about pointing fingers or finding the root cause (unless it's literal zombies). Things like that are inherently political (unless it's literal zombies).
I survived Zombie Con 2011: Full Spectrum Pain
I survived Zombie Con 2012: Our word is "douchebag"
I survived Zombie Con 2014: <Insert inappropriate website here>

LowKey
* * * * *
Posts: 4793
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:32 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Night of the Dead (original and remake)
Dawn of the Dead (original and remake)
Land of the Dead
Diary of the Dead
28 Days
28 Weeks
Resident Evil
Shawn of the Dead
Night of the Comet (cheese squared!)
Dead Alive (cheese cubed!!)
Location: In the Middle East, for my sins.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by LowKey » Thu May 07, 2015 12:36 pm

crypto wrote:Suggestion one: Call terrorists "Terrorists" and leave it at that. You want to talk about how to respond to an incident? awesome. Walk to talk about how to keep the world free from terrorists? This is probably not the place to do that.


Suggestion two: Have you considered making a new website called Terror Squad? You can have blackjack and hookers there and talk about whatever you want. Or alternately, literally anywhere on the internet except here.
:roll:
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
shrapnel
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 5901
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:42 pm
Location: Aboard Baron von Counterculture's groovy purple dirigible, glaring down through a monocle.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by shrapnel » Thu May 07, 2015 1:22 pm

Interestingly, we often get into a very similar problem when we have a thread regarding police brutality, both on the "this is why I hate police" and the "this is why I hate criminals whining that they got roughed up a bit for being criminals" front. Generally, statements that begin with "This is what I hate about [insert group of people here]" should be avoided.

It's also a problem when it starts fights. If you'll note, it's not unusual to see a mod saying 'please knock off the talk of ____' without handing out warnings. That's because fights aren't productive for the forum, but at the same time, nobody is trying to be a dick and give out warnings for every little thing. Unless the behavior is egregious, or has been a pattern, mods usually try and guide discussions back to the topic at hand, rather than shut everything down and just issue warnings left and right.
OTTB wrote:"What's that you're wearing?"
"This? Oh, just my rabies hat."
shrapnel wrote:Darling, I would never fondle your sphenoid.
Dr. Cox wrote: People aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard fillings.
JamesCannon wrote:Shrapnel, if you were a superhero, you'd be Captain Buzzkill Peener Pain.

LowKey
* * * * *
Posts: 4793
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:32 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Night of the Dead (original and remake)
Dawn of the Dead (original and remake)
Land of the Dead
Diary of the Dead
28 Days
28 Weeks
Resident Evil
Shawn of the Dead
Night of the Comet (cheese squared!)
Dead Alive (cheese cubed!!)
Location: In the Middle East, for my sins.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by LowKey » Thu May 07, 2015 1:40 pm

shrapnel wrote:Interestingly, we often get into a very similar problem when we have a thread regarding police brutality, both on the "this is why I hate police" and the "this is why I hate criminals whining that they got roughed up a bit for being criminals" front. Generally, statements that begin with "This is what I hate about [insert group of people here]" should be avoided.

It's also a problem when it starts fights. If you'll note, it's not unusual to see a mod saying 'please knock off the talk of ____' without handing out warnings. That's because fights aren't productive for the forum, but at the same time, nobody is trying to be a dick and give out warnings for every little thing. Unless the behavior is egregious, or has been a pattern, mods usually try and guide discussions back to the topic at hand, rather than shut everything down and just issue warnings left and right.

In all candor, I'm not in disagreement with you.
Where a problem seems to arise is when people seem to justify illegal/unlawful/unethical actions based off of "feelings" or other subjective criteria.

Crimes are crimes.
Lawful activity is lawful activity.
Trying to justify crimes based of feelings is no good (and a violation of the forum rules).
Likewise, criticizing or blaming lawful activity as being to blame for criminal activity is BS. Feel free to debate the wisdom or tactical soundness of lawful activities that may result in drawing fire, but how in fairness and good faith can we castigate people for lawful actions simply because unreasonable persons respond with violence. Such castigation is no better than attempting to place the blame for rape on the victim based on the argument that the clothing worn "begged" for the assault, or that a participant in a gay pride parade somehow shares blame for his/her own assault by some miscreant who's narrow minded world view prohibits a non-heterosexual lifestyle.

In short, there is no legitimate , "well, but. you provoked them", when the activity in question is lawful. Debate the wisdom or tactical soundness of such behavior all you wish.....just not the legitimacy of the actions as long as they are lawful.
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Mikeyboy
* * * * *
Posts: 2265
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 8:00 am

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Mikeyboy » Thu May 07, 2015 2:35 pm

whisk.e.rebellion wrote:
crypto wrote:Suggestion one: Call terrorists "Terrorists" and leave it at that. You want to talk about how to respond to an incident? awesome. Walk to talk about how to keep the world free from terrorists? This is probably not the place to do that.
This.

We're not about pointing fingers or finding the root cause (unless it's literal zombies). Things like that are inherently political (unless it's literal zombies).
Ok now I do agree that some of what I personally posted did point fingers at a certain group which I called out by name, however I never said "All of" this group is bad. Correct me if I'm wrong, but using your logic basically means no one can point fingers at ISIS or al Qaeda whenever there is a terrorist attack, even if they were involved.

Also calling terrorist just plain old terrorist, and victims just plain victims will get us all killed....let me give you an example

So lets say we have a ZS Member who works for a police department, or for a news organization, or is simply is located at the right place at the right time. Lets say this ZS member is local to you gets word of a "Group A" terrorist attack against a "Group B" place of worship being committed in your home town. This happens during a typical weekday and most USA ZS member are either at work or at school and killing time surfing the web and posting on ZS.

This Zombie Squad member gets the news and post.....
Hey just want to let you guys know, there is nothing on the TV news yet, but I just got reports of a coordinated attack against a "Group B" place of worship, and a "Group B" school in "Insert-Your-Hometown". Both involved 2 teams of gunmen armed with AK-47s and shouting Group A phrases and death to Group B. It looks like it might be a radical "Group A" attack, possibly committed by Terrorist group Alpha, or Bravo. Looks like they are targeting "Group B". There are also report of a third team that got into a shootout with police and escaped If you, or any of your kids go to a "Group B" school or place of worship you may want to check on them and maybe get them out. Stay safe.


Would a ZS mod, read that post and promptly delete it and send a warning. Or maybe they would just edited it to say..
Reports of a plain old terrorist attack in St. Louis, MO. Some places were shot up, and some people died. Some gunmen are still on the loose. Nothing on the news channels yet, but check with them for more info.
Is that fair to a ZS members in St. Louis, who has two kids in a Group B school and who's wife works next to a Group B place of worship?

Or to the ZS member who is a devout member of Group B, and wear group B garb while walking the streets of St. Louis?


Again I'm not trying to nitpick and honesty I dislike people who have to push their racist, religious, or political agendas on people, but come on there has to be a line somewhere that is a bit more sensible and logical.

OMG...News Flash....I just got word Putin wants to bring back Communism and the USSR, and is talking about invading......

Wait nevermind can't talk about politics either...

TWD Re-edit....Putin in Russia is talking about changing stuff and taking thangs

User avatar
Boondock
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 2691
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:37 pm
Location: Chicagoland

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Boondock » Thu May 07, 2015 3:37 pm

crypto wrote:Suggestion two: Have you considered making a new website called Terror Squad? You can have blackjack and hookers there and talk about whatever you want. Or alternately, literally anywhere on the internet except here.
:lol:

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 12089
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Bouncing in to Graceland

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Stercutus » Thu May 07, 2015 3:42 pm

crypto wrote:Suggestion one: Call terrorists "Terrorists" and leave it at that. You want to talk about how to respond to an incident? awesome.
Not all terrorists are created equal. They use different tactics, techniques and seek different results for their activities. Many only target certain groups. Eco-terrorists for example do things to support their cause that tend to be less killy than other groups. They tend to not like guns and stick with stuff like poisons and booby traps. Other groups only use bombs, or just package bombs. Some groups like lots of guns and will fight to the death with multiple actors.

Calling someone a terrorist and leaving it at that is like saying "get ready for a big storm". My getting ready for and response to a tornado swarm, hurricane or simply days and days of heavy rain and flooding are all going to be different. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

It seems this rule has change over the last few days from "No Debating of Religion and Politics" to "No Discussion of any Religion or Politics"
Nope, it is way beyond that. Even the posting of any kind of image or depiction of any kind of political or religious figure without commentary is disallowed.
Suggestion two: Have you considered making a new website called Terror Squad? You can have blackjack and hookers there and talk about whatever you want. Or alternately, literally anywhere on the internet except here.
Of course that is not true either. I think the days online forums such as these are coming to an end. Technical forums seem to work fine but anything that involves the interaction of people inevitably goes to what people are and do. Politics and religion being central that. There are too many whiners to have an adult conversation.

We don't go into big political discussions about how to deal with a hurricane, but inevitably someone will comment on the response to an event or lack thereof by political leaders and that is when the whining starts. If people did not whine and the mods did not curtail the discussion it would simply denigrate into arguing.
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

User avatar
buck85
* * *
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:17 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Apocalypse Now
Location: west of Tallahassee and East of Eden

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by buck85 » Thu May 07, 2015 3:48 pm

This is a place for exchanging facts not opinions If you want to express opinions there are plenty of other place to go
If you know who you are, you can, then know other people.

If you have faith, chaos will turn into order.

Let them hate...So long as they fear!

In the absence of light darkness will prevail

User avatar
jnathan
Meat Popsicle
Meat Popsicle
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by jnathan » Thu May 07, 2015 3:50 pm

George Carlin once reduced the 10 commandments down to 1 commandment, and colloquially on ZS we try to do the same thing by reducing the rules down to one: "don't be a dick". Put much more simply, "be considerate"; it's that simple.

We're fed a diet (or we feed ourselves a diet) of stuff that passes for news, but often isn't actually news. It's editorialized with little-to-no journalistic value demonstrating little-to-no journalistic ethics and integrity. Without the tools to distinguish between the two, well intentioned people violate the rules. No one's saying you aren't free to your opinion, you just aren't free to share every opinion here on the ZS forums. There are lots of other places to have political and religious discussions (and even hate on stuff if you like).

News is probably OK, editorializing is where you need to tread lightly. That is:
  • information: good!
  • opinions on stuff covered in the rules: be pragmatic, exercise your best judgement, don't violate rules
Finally, the forum software has a pretty robust private messaging system. You're welcome to continue discussions there or even via email if you and another forum user want to do that. Go nuts, just don't necessarily go nuts here.

-Jeff
My name is Jeff, not Jonathan. Jonathan would fit...

ZSC:020 Chicagoland | How to search ZS | GHB

Image

User avatar
jnathan
Meat Popsicle
Meat Popsicle
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by jnathan » Thu May 07, 2015 3:53 pm

buck85 wrote:This is a place for exchanging facts not opinions If you want to express opinions there are plenty of other place to go
Opinions are great, we just don't want discussions on political, religious or hate opinions on the ZS forums.

-Jeff
My name is Jeff, not Jonathan. Jonathan would fit...

ZSC:020 Chicagoland | How to search ZS | GHB

Image

User avatar
Hollis
* * *
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:39 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Resident Evil, Fido, 28 days later, Night of the Living Dead,
Location: Pacific Northwet/Ecotopia

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Hollis » Thu May 07, 2015 3:59 pm

I think this question represents a major conflict in our way of thinking. We tend to pigeon hole things. The farthest that they are from us the more general the description. As we get to know them better, their name works. Politics is based on this, it is stereo typing. If we say GroupA tangos, that seems to imply everyone in GroupA is a tango, but is it? So we choose the adjective to define the tango by our own bias'.

Recently two Male terrorists, or Two Arizona Terrorists, to Two American Terrorists, Sort of implying members in that group are tangos. They are not, I am not a Terrorist, I am a male, I lived in Arizona and I am a American. So why do we pick the specific adjective to add to the identification of a tango, is were politics comes in.

Example, I do not like people from Arizona, so I will note the recent tangos are from Arizona and label them Arizona Terrorists.

If one notice in the media this is done a lot, the tagging of a person where it is believed they have committed a crime. Ferguson and Baltimore comes to mind.
Zombies don't ski.

User avatar
DarkAxel
* * * * *
Posts: 3805
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:25 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: The Evil Dead Series, Dawn of the Dead, Shawn of the Dead, NOTLD, Resident Evil Series
Location: Jackson, KY
Contact:

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by DarkAxel » Thu May 07, 2015 5:21 pm

I read the cartoon attack and related (to the lock) threads. My take:

1)If your hosts ask you to not post something, don't fucking post it. It doesn't matter WHAT the rules say, because it ain't your place and you don't make the rules.

2)The mods are approachable. If you had ran your post by a mod before you posted it, maybe you wouldn't have been given a warning, Mikeyboy. NamelessStain probably wouldn't be in timeout if he'd done it.

3)A terrorist is a terrorist. Sure, different ideologies may use different tactics, but it is probably best to discuss those groups based on the tactical differences. Discussing them based on their ideological motivation is a non-starter here.
vyadmirer wrote:Call me the paranoid type, but remember I'm on a post apocalyptic website prepared for zombies.
Fleet #: ZS 0180

Browncoat

Imma Fudd, and proud of it.

ZS Wiki

User avatar
JeeperCreeper
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 2169
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:49 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Twilight... making zombies of our future generations
Location: Yo Momma's House

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by JeeperCreeper » Thu May 07, 2015 6:00 pm

I'm gonna go playground rules on this one: "I'm taking my ball and going home!!"

Image
They see me trollin', they hatin'.... keyboardin' tryna catch me typin' dirty
Halfapint wrote:There are some exceptions like myself and jeepercreeper.... but we are the forum asshats. We protect our positions with gusto
zero11010 wrote:The girlfriend is a good shot with a 10/22.
Her secondary offense will be nagging.

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 12089
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Bouncing in to Graceland

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Stercutus » Thu May 07, 2015 7:12 pm

3)A terrorist is a terrorist. Sure, different ideologies may use different tactics, but it is probably best to discuss those groups based on the tactical differences. Discussing them based on their ideological motivation is a non-starter here.
I think that is as far as it can go. People will have to have choose their own risk level for going to certain events based upon their own perceptions and not those of zs. Even stating to avoid going to a certain place or attending an event out of concern of attack (or riot, civil disturbance or whatever) is political in nature.
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

User avatar
Halfapint
* * * * *
Posts: 3605
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:41 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: all?
Location: Central Cascadia

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Halfapint » Fri May 08, 2015 3:06 am

Stercutus wrote:
3)A terrorist is a terrorist. Sure, different ideologies may use different tactics, but it is probably best to discuss those groups based on the tactical differences. Discussing them based on their ideological motivation is a non-starter here.
I think that is as far as it can go. People will have to have choose their own risk level for going to certain events based upon their own perceptions and not those of zs. Even stating to avoid going to a certain place or attending an event out of concern of attack (or riot, civil disturbance or whatever) is political in nature.
Never thought that I'd find myself thinking that Stercutus has the voice of reason... But damn it. He's right you know (said in my best Morgan Freeman voice).
JeeperCreeper wrote:I like huge dicks, Halfapint, so you are OK in my book.... hahaha
Spazzy wrote:Tell ya what... If Zombies attack and the world ends I'll hook tandem toddlers to a plow if it means I'll be able to eat...

User avatar
shrapnel
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 5901
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:42 pm
Location: Aboard Baron von Counterculture's groovy purple dirigible, glaring down through a monocle.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by shrapnel » Fri May 08, 2015 8:51 am

'Freddie Gray was arrested for carrying a 'switchblade'; reports seem to be that it was actually a knife with a thumb stud [link to reasonably trustworthy news story]' is fine. The same statement, appended with '...and that just goes to show that police don't know what the hell the laws they're supposed to enforce are, and also that they're racists' is a problem. It could be argued that neither really belongs in a thread about riots, but if everyone could manage to stay civil and avoid fights, the former wouldn't be an issue. It always ends up as one, because someone always chimes in with "yeah but he was a known felon. They kill each other all the time, so I don't care much if one of them gets killed" and then it's off and running, but yeah. First one wouldn't get you a warning, the second one likely will.

'A terrorist attack is in progress in Mumbai' is also fine. Responding to that with 'yeah it's probably Muslims doing it' isn't. Nor is 'this is why I don't trust/like Muslims.' 'Al Qaeda is claiming responsibility for the blah blah blah attacks [link]' is also ok. 'This is why I hate blah sect of Muslims- you never know when they're gonna go on a murder spree', not so much.

At some point it does indeed become a judgement call, but you can always ask a mod if you're not sure if a post is ok. When in doubt, stick to the actual topic. Great example, the Baltimore riots thread. The thread was about the riots, not whatever whoever did or didn't do to whoever. Most of the mod involvement had to happen because people wouldn't stop bickering about what started the rioting, when realistically, it didn't matter. The end result was riots, and the thread was about the riots, not whatever systemic racial and/or political issues led to them. Ditto most disasters- the root causes are basically immaterial by the time they become full-blown issues. Other websites have better and more in-depth analyses of those, and you are welcome to go to those sites to discuss them. Saying that a given group is behind some sort of action is ok, assuming that they, you know, are indeed behind it. Talking about why that group is that group, particularly in a blamey way, usually isn't.


Please note that this is just me bloviating, and that I did not discuss this with whisk.e.rebellion, so he is welcome to overrule me at any point.
OTTB wrote:"What's that you're wearing?"
"This? Oh, just my rabies hat."
shrapnel wrote:Darling, I would never fondle your sphenoid.
Dr. Cox wrote: People aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard fillings.
JamesCannon wrote:Shrapnel, if you were a superhero, you'd be Captain Buzzkill Peener Pain.

User avatar
Boondock
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 2691
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:37 pm
Location: Chicagoland

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Boondock » Fri May 08, 2015 9:37 am

Halfapint wrote:Never thought that I'd find myself thinking that Stercutus has the voice of reason... But damn it. He's right you know (said in my best Morgan Freeman voice).
"Unlike other inmates at Shawshank, Andy Dufresne never thought about breaking Rule #7. Until the day ... "

Myana
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:33 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Dead Snow
Location: West Linn, OR

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Myana » Fri May 08, 2015 12:20 pm

The first version of my post on Baltimore was a long screed on the erosion of freedom of assembly in Western democracies and how the media imposes politically-charged narratives on events, turning 'news' into propaganda. When I finished, I thought, "What does this have to do with prepping?"

Squat all, I realized.

And so, even though it pained me to delete a hour of fevered ranting, I did. Posted a short thing instead, noting that I'd just spent a week in the city with no significant inconvenience or fear, and that avoiding hot spots was sufficient precaution to keep me safe. I even wondered about that -- was it relevant to prepping? I decided it was useful to remind people that the news may not be a good indication of what you'll encounter in an emergency.

If I want to rant, there are plenty of places I can do that. I value ZS's "no religion, no politics" stance because I've seen what happens at other prepper sites.

User avatar
JeeperCreeper
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 2169
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:49 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Twilight... making zombies of our future generations
Location: Yo Momma's House

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by JeeperCreeper » Fri May 08, 2015 12:37 pm

Myana wrote:I value ZS's "no religion, no politics" stance because I've seen what happens at other prepper sites.
ZOMG!!!! #yes #truth #onlyteenagegirlsusehashtags

One of the reasons I decided to be come a legit member here was because of this and the charity side of things. People will turn anything and everything political, and other sites gets so bogged down in derails of rantings that I fear some of the forums I frequent will become hate groups.

But you could have always taken your well-typed-hour-long-rant and posted it to Politics Squad: "Making corrupted things more corrupt"

(yes, I used hashtags and made a backhanded political statement all about politics all in one post)
They see me trollin', they hatin'.... keyboardin' tryna catch me typin' dirty
Halfapint wrote:There are some exceptions like myself and jeepercreeper.... but we are the forum asshats. We protect our positions with gusto
zero11010 wrote:The girlfriend is a good shot with a 10/22.
Her secondary offense will be nagging.

Kilo147
* *
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:36 am
Location: 6 miles NNE of Seattle

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Kilo147 » Fri May 08, 2015 2:24 pm

crypto wrote:
Suggestion two: Have you considered making a new website called Terror Squad? You can have blackjack and hookers there and talk about whatever you want. Or alternately, literally anywhere on the internet except here.
Oh, man. Terror Squad is a great name for a death metal band.

Also, terrorism is terrorism. Ignore the fact that it's a nutjob behind it and focus on the only part that matters for schmucks like us. Survival. I don't give a shit if it's fanatical Muslim, A crazy right winger, or an equally crazy eco-terrorist. All I care is that I make it out alive and can help others survive.

User avatar
the_alias
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 5975
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:51 pm
Location: Not Here.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by the_alias » Sat May 09, 2015 3:29 am

What benefit do you think there is in discussing the religious convictions of terrorists in relation to preparing for a terrorist attack?

Most terrorists attacks involving Muslims are happening in Europe and the threads discussing them on ZS haven't always been large for that reason.

There isn't really that much to discuss on ZS about the reasons for why that is - I of course have my own strong opinions on the matter but ZS simply isn't the place.

At the end of the day the answer to these problems is going to be:

Live under a rock and avoid potential targets

OR

Be as prepared as possible with an IFAK, situational awareness, and an escape plan.
Man is a beast of prey

Locked

Return to “Ask ZS”